Carney Slams “Attempts to Politicize” Benghazi

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney today dismissed the Benghazi controversy as a third rate burglary as nothing more than the politicization of a “tragedy” that has already been thoroughly investigated.

“This is a subject that has from its beginning been subject to attempts to politicize it by Republicans, when in fact what happened in Benghazi was a tragedy,” Carney said. “We’re at a place where there are attempts to politicize this when that should not be the case.”

These were the words of another big-Government flunky who had to trim the sails of “truth” to match his political reality. In HIS case, he had a patently innocent man before him – he said so himself – that, nevertheless, had to die for Pilate to preserve his OWN political situation. Whether Jesus was a good man or bad, Son of G_d or not, didn’t matter. Pilate’s politics said Jesus must die a horrible, excrutiating death so Pilate could save his own skin.

That was Pilate’s “Truth”.

What do you suppose Carney’s is? What do you suppose Obama’s is? Do you think it may be something like Pilate’s?

Stay tuned, and we’ll see…

SIde note; do you think Pilate ever came to regret that decision? Do you think he may still, even today, be paying for it? I suspect he may be…and these folks may well keep him company, when they stand before a Judge that CAN’T be decieved and isn’t impressed by Obama’s skin tone, since He gave it to him in the first place…

And not even Harry Reid will be able to save him. Harry may be too busy answering for his OWN “truths” to worry about his boss’s…

You bet it’s “political”, what else could it be. It’s “political” because politicians decided it wouldn’t be a good idea to make a show of military force in Libya that would make the “political” regime look bad there, and because they decided any reactive action might cause harm to MrObama’s “political” future.

No one is suggesting that a “political” decision was made to allow the deaths of the four Americans. The “political” decision was to keep a hands-off response and hope that the attack would just run out of energy. The events in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four Americans and the wounding of another unknown number were the results of bad “political” decisions of MrObama and MrsClinton.

Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

If the Republicans slop all over the place, do not drill in, and let this slip through their fingers, well, it’s the last chance on this. What were Obama and Clinton doing from 5 PM on? What calls, cables, anything–even to each other–did they make? Did Hillary know about previous cables and concerns about the place? Who said no intervention or help should be sent? Who dreamed up the video stuff? Was Cairo even ABOUT it? What do the other survivors have to say? Why could these people not testify until now? Did Obama depend on crummy staff work to give him deniability?

er, I was watching Fox too. at 5pm the lame replacement for Beck was on ( “The Five”), and they don’t really count.

but at the 6pm hard-news hour, Bret Baier led with Benghazi, and then talked about the military men who were “relieved of duty” having to do with nukes. only then did they go to the murder and kidnaping stories. (they’re back to Benghazi now, at 6:30.)

the whole time Fox was covering all that, MSNBC was on the story of the three freed Ohio women.

I know because I was writing it down, charting it for a friend of mine. (I’m trying to convince her that Fox does real news.) and also because I’m a complete politics nerd, and have nothing better to do!

speaking of Watergate, it’s ironic to think when she was a young attorney working with the Senate during the hearings, Hillary Rodham Clinton was obsessed with finding out what the president knew and when he knew it. now? not so much.

I watched almost all of the hearing; it was long but informative. The only Congressmen who tried to politicize this were Democrats. Cummings and Connolly were blatant in their attempts. It was disgusting.

When a professional spokesperson like Jay Carney struggles to put a simple, coherent sentence together, you know that he is internally conflicted. He can obviously feel the depth of exposure, so he accuses others of doing exactly what he and his boss did. What material he has to work with in order to respond to the obvious questions, comes up way short, and he knows it. Persuasion is his goal, but he’d settle for mere coverage of the bases. But he can’t even do that. Jay is grasping for an adequate response; anything to push back with, but there simply is no there there.

Consider this awkward and gobsmacked conflation:

“We’re at a place where there are attempts to politicize this when that should not be the case.”

A place? No, Jay, we are not at a place . . . we are at an impasse. You all were given some leeway as the Benghazi story “evolved” . . . to explain some of the huge holes in your initial story. None of you could even talk about it while it was being investigated by the FBI, and evaluated by the ARB.

Now we come to find out that the Administration’s insulting public contradiction of the Libyan President in the immediate aftermath likely prevented cooperation in getting the FBI to the scene for several weeks, thereby critically compromising any potential forensic gain.

As for the ARB, we have also learned the jaw-dropping fact that the ARB never even interviewed Hillary Clinton regarding her actions that night. But neither you nor she could answer any questions whilst they were conducting their through review! And what did she finally come up with . . . “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

No wonder you can’t cobble together a coherent sentence now, Jay!

Three individuals who are obviously not partisan, have convincingly reinforced the suspicion that the initial response from the Obama Administration was not just an incomplete story based on mistaken assumptions and a dearth of information. Now it is clear that it was a baseless political contrivance, a story line that was deliberately intended to mislead the public in order to hide incompetence and misfeasance at the highest levels, before, during and after the incident.

And yet you are now trying to accuse others of being political? You can’t even tell that lie with a straight face. No wonder you can’t talk.

How much more evidence must we suffer to (1) acknowledge the intellectual, social, psychological, moral, pusillanimous, infantile rot that inhabits and infests our White House and government; and (2) then rise up against it?

All times Eastern Live stream of White House briefing at 12:15 pm Live stream of Netanyahu address to Congress at 10:30 am

Quote of the Day

"I just want to take a moment to announce that the Mosul attack is now officially a surprise attack. I repeat, the Mosul attack is now officially a suprise. It also is being delayed until June. Thank you."

- Barack Obama

A note from our attorneys: This is not a real quote

Please Contribute

An $18 donation is just five cents a day for a year of White House news and accountability.

Donate when you shop!

This is so easy! Support White House Dossier by clicking here when you shop Amazon. Bookmark it and use it as your link to Amazon.

The link will look like a normal Amazon link, but WHD will receive a percentage of the price of your order. It doesn't cost you a thing or affect your shopping.